About your Search

20121202
20121210
STATION
CSPAN 49
LANGUAGE
English 49
Search Results 0 to 48 of about 49 (some duplicates have been removed)
of the appropriations and budget committee. also joined by georgetown university tax law professor john buckley on how the alternative minimum tax is affecting fiscal negotiations. "washington journal" is next. ♪ ♪ host: 25 days to go before the united states faces the fiscal cliff, the white house has rejected a proposal from house republicans to prevent tax hikes and spending cuts at the end of the year. no formal talks between the two sides are scheduled today. will go outside the nation's capital to get your voice involved. republicans -- democrats -- independents -- send us a tweet, post your comments on facebook, or send us an e-mail. we begin with some of the papers across the country today and how this latest proposal from house republicans is playing out in the papers. courtesy of "the atlantic journal-constitution" -- here is "the denver post" -- finally, here is "of the arizona republic" -- here is "the washington post" on what is inside this deal -- we want to get your take on this. what do you think? ted in new york, a democratic caller. what do you think? caller: good morning. i do n
face the uncertainty that many will face with regard to their taxes. there is no reason that middle income families should go into this holiday season without knowing whether their taxes will go up next year. last year, democrats and republicans work together to cut nearly $1 trillion of spending. now we need to continue that bi- partisan work to cut more spending, and to if congress fails to reach an agreement under the budget control act of 2011, 1.2 trillion dollars in automatic spending cuts will take lace between 2013 and 2021. republicans and democrats agree that indiscriminate across-the- board cuts is not the right and to do at this time in our nation's history. if we trigger the automatic spending cuts and tax increases , grossed a mustard product will fall by half a percentage point -- gross margin bottom will fall by half a percentage point. we will reverse the hard-fought gains over the past few years. we cannot afford to go backwards. instead we need a balanced and bipartisan approach. one that balances the short and long-term needs, distinguishes between foreign invest
have had an experience of this in new england. new hampshire has no income tax, no sales tax. every state around hampshire had one or the other. in the 1960's, and every state added another one, either the sales tax or the income tax. within hesitation of their people that the other tax would come out and the revenue would be used because it will be more effective in collecting it. every one of those states, the revenues have gone down, the income tax has gone up, and the size of government has gone up. from my standpoint, a value- added tax is just a way to grossly expand the size of the government, and it does not fix our revenue problems. more importantly than that, just the point where i think this argument ends up, the american people would annihilate any party that passed a national sales tax rate. if the democratic party thinks they are in charge now, and they are, and the republican party has done some things to marginalize itself, but if you want to resurrect a republican party, give me a value-added tax. >> let's take the value-added tax off the table for this the session,
know where both sides are on taxes. i think we understand that. but to the speaker's point, we have not had any discussion and any specifics with this president about the real problem, which is spending. we have got to do something about the spending. and obsessions to raise taxes is not going to solve the problem. what will solve the problem is, doing something about the entitlements, taking on the wasteful spending in washington. we can't just keep borrowing money and raising taxes and expecting the problem to go away. that is our point to the president. and as the speaker said, we want to sit down with the president and want to talk specifics. we put an offer on the table now. he has out of hand reject that had. where are the specifics and where are the discussions? nothing is going on. the people of this country are suffering. we ask the president, sit down with us and be serious about the specifics in the spending so we can stop the wasteful spending in washington and finally address the problem. >> as we continue to try to solve the fiscal cliff, the thing we have continued to
obama. i really liked mitt romney. why do i have to pay less taxes than my friend from massachusetts? that really bugged me. host: that is stephen from connecticut. tyrone is a republican from the bronx. caller: i think hillary clinton would be an excellent candidate in 2016. i think she handled the middle eastern issue to the best of her ability. also, as far as the gop is concerned, i think she has made strides toward eliminating the tax spending through various commitments with private entities and organizations that are coming out of the woodwork. i was watching earlier today and what they were requesting from the white house was let's fix this problem by incorporating a small businesses and less government intervention to curb the deficit. it has been astronomical. then i heard barack obama say the way we are going to do it is by making more cuts in various ways. he was saying by making more cuts and the only people it is going to hurt is the working class and somewhat of the middle-class. he should mention the fact that out of control spending has a lot to do with the credit ca
will be cut by january 1 in order to avoid sequestration and all the tax hikes? mark, i will start with you. >> i think it is 80% that we will avoid sequestration. the question is, though, is this going to be a big enough deal, and will actually be enough of a down payment that it will lead to something else subsequently that will actually avoid the kind of enormous consequences of $16 trillion of debt? that percentage will be lower than the 80%. >> let's come back to the big picture -- in the short term, by january 1 -- will we avoid the cliff? >> i think it is likely that we avoid it. it does not appear that that is going so well. it is so easy for us just to do the things we need to do. i think the real line in the sand is going to be the debt ceiling. i really do think -- i have said that for a long time. i think that is when, hopefully, by that time anyway we will have real entitlement reform, which will bring all of this together. >> chris? >> i think it is better than 50% that we are able to get an agreement before january 1. but that is premised on a belief that our republican colle
calls, e-mail, and tweets. after that, a look at the estate tax which is set to go up at the end of the year unless congress and the white house act. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] senior republican aides are contemplating a fallback plan for the so called "fiscal cliff", which includes extending tax cuts for the middle class and resuming a fight over spending and taxes for the wealthy later. meanwhile, going overseas, nato makes a move on the turkish border with syria. military officials deny preparations for military intervention. protesters in egypt march on the palace as mohamed morsi flees. international and domestic news is all on the table for you this morning as we open up the phone lines. also, send us a tweet. or post your comment on facebook. or send us an e-mail. we will get back to that new york times story. first, some other headlines on the domestic front. here is the "washington times." also, sticking with the senate, the baltimore sun reporting this headline -- in politics, here is
that taxes and middle-class americans that violates the fundamental preliminary that the president has -- in order to preserve low tax rates for wealthy americans, to ask the middle class to pay the price is not going to happen. it's not just the policy. >> only taxes on those families making $250,000. >> every proposal that has been seen and analyzed imagine you can achieve the necessary amount of revenue by closing deductions or closing loopholes, does that in one of two ways. one, raising taxes on the middle class by eliminating very family-friendly deductions like the mortgage deduction, health care deduction and others or by taking draconian action on the charitable deductions and others that aren't good policy or aren't realistic. it would be hard to explain, i don't think members would want to explain to nonprofit hospitals, major charities, universities and others that all that -- all those contributions that they received in the past will not be forth coming because of an action of congress, i don't think that is realistic. >> one last question, if the amount of revenue were t
that senior aides are considering just such a strategy to give them a soft landing in the tax debate. they live to fight another day on spending cuts. we agree that a tax hike on middle-class americans should be taken off the table in the middle of the christmas season. >> let's get serious and across of the biggest item on our to do list and get this senate tax cut bill passed and passed now. >> questions? >> you going to call on people? >> yes. >> >> we're here to encourage the hike that will average $2,200 a are getting ready for the newit is fair, it is one thing that trillion in spending reductions. gas to go back and forth to the house as well as olympia republicans said, why don't you the house it will pass with a bipartisan vote. what other spending cuts would you propose? what has gotten us into this mess is people propose large numbers and never fell in the details. we have filled in the details of our first step. let them kill and the details of their first step on it attacks or the spending side. they have not done either so it is not much of an offer. >> what they did sa
, reagan did hold up his end of the deal and went along to support the tax increases. however, it -- on their side of the equation and did not implement the spending cuts, and so, this also happens again under the elder george bush's presidency, so i have very little confidence in democratic leadership's willingness to stand by a pledge to cut any spending at all. host: thanks to all the calls this morning. the house of representatives is about to come into session. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., december 4, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable gregg harper to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 17, 2012, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate . the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority a
at the president's offer. we haven't found any spending reductions at all. we found the $1.6 trillion tax increases. the stimulus spending,we saw the extension of the unemployment insurance, which is an increase in spending. the delay in the spending cuts whatsoever. do you think the president's current offer gives us the 2-1 test? >> no. it is short. he needs to come up with roughly $600 billion more in spending cuts over the next 10 years. i think that there are significant reforms in medicare, medicaid, agricultural subsidies, and other programs in the budget. those are difficult things to implement. it takes a lot of guts to propose those things. i would not discount them. they are important. to answer your question more specifically, we do name or spending cuts to get to my ideal. -- we need more spending cuts to get to my ideal. >> policymakers need to reform entitlements. i do see members of the other party -- most notably, mr. hoyer --he said, not now. they are on the table for a later discussion. i have been disappointed that a lot of the discussion seems to be on the revenue side and not
, your feeling that there will be some kind of accommodation and a deal even on the tax and spending and sequester side or both? >> good morning. glad to be with you and give you my perspective on where we are. to the beginning of your question, i often say one i am giving remarks that -- people in the same group, no matter how ponce and they are, people -- no matter how partis and they are, people will say two things. i want you to go to washington and stand on your principal. i want you to fight for us. i say, i will. someone else will get up and say, i want you to compromise and find the middle ground and get things done. this is the 10th time this just happen to me. i say, that is exactly what they hired me to do, to figure out how we do both of those things. it is our job as representatives in congress, to fight for our values and the principles we believe in and still can something done. that is where we are right now. the divide we are facing right now -- i hope all parties understand we have serious challenges. we have created a moment in time with there are major fiscal and
capital gains rate in the a.m.t. is higher than the regular tax rates from incomes around $200,000 to $500,000. and that was the first broad expansion of the a.m.t., it began to hit an awful lot of people. then in 2001 they reduced regular tax rates but did not reduce a.m.t. tax rates. . for many people, the a.m.t. tax bill only changed the name of the tax i paid. i got little benefit from the rate ofin my opinion, the expand on tax has nothing to do with the action of indexing. it is the result of the conscious decision to hike the cost of tax reductions. >> the alternative minimum tax is 28%. if your tax rate was lowered to 25%. you still have to pay 28%. >> that is correct. for incomes between to london thousand dollars and $500,000, the effective tax rate is 35%. you hit the 35% rate and incomes fire lower than the income levels at which you would hit the 35% rate and regular tax. >> why do they call it a patch? >> it is a one time year by year patch to stop the broad expansion. you could ask why they call it a cliff. they have discussed this in terms of the patch. it is a
corporate and individual taxes. the third piece is small businesses. we work out how develop a tax code that is good for competitiveness. you need to think about how those play into it. i think one of the things to keep hearing through messages with different groups of people is, while everybody is aware that the solution is going to take sacrifices from all sides, on spending, on revenues -- the confidence you get for putting the deal in place to actually has tremendous economic benefits. the cheapest form of stimulus is confidence. if we can put that in place, and people believe something is going to stick, it becomes easier to do your part in all of this. if the moving pieces and revenue are there, do not underestimate the benefit of what the future holds. >> this ties into michael's point. the productivity, the amount of money they get spent maintaining and administering the complex tax code is unbelievable. i would rather be spending that money. let us get on with building a business. society should do it. people should take that as a given. i know the rest of us have it. we would
, since the invention of the income tax. there has always been a deduction for interest that you paid. the government didn't think it could distinguish between mortgage interest and other kinds of interest. less interest is deductible now. some of the things are left over from the early days of the tax code. there is no magic about allowing people to deduct mortgage interest and not the interest they pay on their credit cards. some of these things are hard to explain. host: does it incentivize home buying? guest: it does provide some if incentive for buying a home and is a large tax break and gives them an enormous benefits. it mostly provides an incentive for buying a bigger house. it seems to incentivize mcmansions. there is a fair question of whether that is something we should be spending that much money on. host: let's go to ohio, robert is a democrat. caller: yes, my question is this. a question/comment. i have seen all these outbreaks been giving out. supposedly they were created for an incentive for them to hire more people. they were given as four years and years. a majority
recommendations in the report create 1.7 million jobs. everyone talks about taxes and what's going to happen with the fiscal cliff. in the last 10 years there's been $1,500 for every american consumer has gone to increased oil prices. $1,500. we're now talking about $2,000 take the tax cuts make a different for middle-class americans. you can get them that tax cut today if you invested in our report. and then everybody talks about entitlements. the social security administration trustees have said that high oil prices make the social security trust insolvent five years sooner than they would if you didn't have high oil prices. look, we all know what america needs. america needs jobs. america needs growth. following the recommendations in our report will lead to both of those. that's going to be good for the politicians, it's going to be good for the consumers, it's going to be good for american business. >> let me bring in the senators here to ask about -- i'll start with you, senator alexander. if you could just tell me a little bit about energy policy in this country and where it fits in i
a factory in china and sell cars. they can delay paying u.s. taxes on that indefinitely. but the money comes from the rent, as so-called passive income, they have to pay taxes on that immediately. this provision says if your a bank -- you can be late paying your taxes. it is going to be considered active income. it is quite valuable to them. it is kind of a gray area. in 1986 when they did big tax reform, they said that is active income and we should tax that money. host: we have been talking with sam goldfarb from cq roll call. thank you very much. >> explores the history and literary culture of all money -- of albany. tonight on c-span, a senate debate on the fiscal cliff. shaun donovan discusses it. harry reid and mitch mcconnell when back-and-forth on fiscal cliff issues and a proposal to raise the debt ceiling. here is part of their exchange. >> yesterday afternoon, i came to the floor and offered president obama's proposal on the fiscal cliff to show that neither he nor democrats in congress are acting in good faith in these negotiations. with just a few weeks ago before a potentially
end up in situations where they can't cover their insurance and their taxes and too often we lead to a situation where they have more leverage, more debt, than their home is worth by the time they're ready to sell that home. >> so you're saying because of that change, that's what resulted in the huge $2.9 billion. >> that is for many of these -- for most of the new loans that we're making, they're at this full draw and they -- the actuary predicts they're going to be enormous losses on those going forward because of this full draw feature. >> ok. and also, the last time you testified before the committee, we discussed the national mortgage settlement. can you talk briefly about the m.m.i. fund, how it's benefited from the settlement? >> in the most direct way it's benefited by well over $1 billion that came directly to the fund from that settlement. or that series of settlements. also important, though, is we put in place not just for fmplet h.a. loans but for -- f.h.a. loans but for every kind of loan that were serviced by the banks that were part of it, new standards for how the
that we need to repeal this law that tries to set a debt limit and concentrate more on taxing and spending policies that causes to raise the debt, as i understand? >> absolutely. it is a bad way to conduct policy. it is a problem. look at july and august of 2011. it was a mess. gdp downgraded the debt. it really had an impact. cbo is estimating the interest costs is costing us money. it is pretty clear that this is not going to get any better going forward. it will be worse. this is a really bad way of doing things. we need to get rid of this. having said that, we need budget rules. we need to find a way to be credible. the debt ceiling approach is the wrong way of doing it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> i want to pursue that question a little bit. this is on my mind also. my experience is the political system find it awfully difficult to say no to constituents. with reelection in mind or a natural human tendency to want to please people rather than disappoint them. i had the privilege of meeting with christine lagarde from the imf. i asked about the reforms that we
that by increasing taxes on families, halting employment growth, driving unemployment up instead of down, triggering a deep cuts to programs that families across the country count on. the job before the united states congress is to reach an agreement that builds on the economic progress that we are making, and puts us on a path to fiscal stability. we need to cut more spending, and generate more revenue. we need to do it in a smart way that keeps our economy growing. earlier this year, congress extended the payroll tax cut through 2012. the two percentage point payroll tax cut has played an important role to sustain the recovery. boosting economic growth by an estimated 0.5% of one percentage point, and creating 400,000 jobs. we should continue the payroll tax cut through 2013, and yesterday i introduce legislation that would keep the employee payroll tax at 4.2% next year. to keep the economy growing -- there is good evidence of that in the last couple of months? job growth of about 511,000. to keep that momentum going, we should provide tax credits to small businesses. my legislation includes such
is a combination of a vibrant economy that creates and positive role. federal policies on the national debt, taxes and regulations, allclass job creation. opening and growing a business. they are afraid of getting hit with a massive tax increase to pay off this debt. one of the leading causes of our growing future debt is the way medicare is currently designs for the future -- designed for the future. the sooner we act, the likelier we can do it without making any currently in the system, like paul ryan's and my mother. a complicated tax code is also hampering the creation of jobs. you cannot open a business if uncertain. that is allied i oppose the present's plans to raise taxes the -- that is why i oppose the dent in the debt. over half of the private sector workers and america work for the plans will raise taxes on. we should a follow the examplewe should keep rates low on everyone, simplify our tax code loopholes. generate revenues by creating new tax payers, not new taxes. [applause] only way to generate the kind of taxpayers. safe. but regulations cost money to follow. creation. that is why
dollar deficits throughout that time. tax policy hasn't changed during that time. tax policy is exactly the same. you hear in the newspaper all the time, mr. speaker, the bush tax cuts. i don't know that that has meaning anymore. in 2001 and 2003 we did do some dramatic changes to tax policy. president obama extended all of those changes in 2010. that's the law of the land still today. tax policy has been exactly the same over this continuum. what has changed, mr. speaker, what has changed is the spending. the reason deficits have grown not one, not two, not three but almost four times larger than the previous record deficit in american history is not because tax policy has changed, it hasn't. it's because federal spending policy has changed. and that's what we have to get our arms around here in this body. what i show going forward, mr. speaker, put a little square around the annual budget deficits that have been run during the first four years of the obama administration, but i also project what the congressional budget office believes, that's a nonpartisan budget planning group we ha
, and new tax revenues. there was a three page letter signed by speaker boehner, majority leader eric cantor, and other senior republicans including representative paul ryan. and this mornings "washington journal," we heard about tax reductions and credits that would go away if the fiscal cliff passes in january. >> board or series looking into the so-called fiscal cliff, we turn our attention to deductions and tax loopholes. some of them are potentially on the chopping block. joining us from the wall street journal is don mckinnon. thanks so much for joining us today. what are the loopholes and deductions? we hear those words a lot, but what are they? guest: loopholes or tax breaks of all different sorts, and whether you like a particular loophole or not depends on where you sit, i guess. there are lots of loopholes that are deductions. deductions are those that most people are familiar with. the big, itemized deductions are things like the home mortgage interest deduction. there is a deduction for state and local taxes that is very important, the deduction for charitable contributions is r
taxes, you know, we don't -- you know we don't agree with that. but fix the problem so if you're asking for somebody to give more of their money into washington, at least be able to tell them that we are going to manage down the debt. that's what we're about here. which is why the focus on spending and how we have to ratchet down the spending in this town. and that's where we've heard no specifics or willingness on the part of the president to engage in discussions about specifics on spending. as far as the math is concerned, again, it was a very different president in the summer of 2011 when he said $1.2 trillion in additional revenues could be accomplished without hiking tax rates. that's what he said. so, again, all of a sudden that math doesn't work but it worked for 1.2 before. regardless, we sort of understand now, at least this round, where everyone is on taxes. let's get to the problem and maybe then we can resolve the taxes question. i yield back. mr. hoyer: well, we have a fundamental disagreement because the gentleman continues to want to focus on spending. i think
. and of course everyone, everyone deserves a $250,000 tax break. we all agree on that. so why not just simply adopt it and then come back and we'll have time to address the issues as it relates to bending the cost curve on health care and focusing on the vast inefficiencies, the fraud, the abuse and the waste that totals more than $750 billion annually? as for the chairman from my district said, list, it would be a way for us to bring down the deficit but also make health care affordable, accessible and functional for the american people. something i believe we must do. with that let me introduce the chair in waiting, javier becerra. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. it's been a pleasure serving with you as our chairman of the caucus. december, how many families do you know that are sitting down right now trying to do some quick math on their finances and figure out how they can stay on their budget and have a little left over to buy gifts for the kids and for the loved ones so it will be a merry christmas, great holiday for all of america's families? they don't have any choice but to fig
. tanner? guest: the unemployment tax is generally under 1% even when you include the match that goes into the extended benefits. we're already running in federal debt more than 100% of gdp. once you get over 60% to 70% of gdp, that begins to slow economic growth. we are costing jobs. that is because that money is -- players are looking down the road and saying they're going to have to pay more in the future. we simply cannot afford to spend money, especially we do not have, and still expect to grow fast enough to create the jobs we need to get these folks off of unemployment. host: dotmr. bivens -- mr. bivens? guest: the employer taxes that kicked in are more modest than the previous caller said. i think she had a 15% number. it is an average of $40 a worker. a lot of the states have had to repay. where we disagree is what is holding back the economy. most of the deficit we have today is a symptom of how the economy is and is providing a useful product by injecting demand into the economy, and that is why we are still constrained. host: joseph and is on the democratic line. caller: w
the right solution for solving our issues of middlele class tax cuts and the fiscal deadline and make sure we move in a very positive direction. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, we have no further speakers. i am prepared to return the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman. mr. smith: we have no further speakers on this side. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass bill h.r. 6620. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, morph that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6602, to make revisions in title 36, uni
grown up in virginia and gone to virginia hools and parents have paid taxes for years and in the process of trying to continue their american experience, we luckily were able to overturn legislation and try to exclude those folks from going to college. but that i think becomes now maybe not a given but it's sure as he can going to be fairly shortly. the chalsleng now going to be because there are these 11 million undocumented persons who work in america trying to sort through some path of legal status for those folks which i think has to be a national priority as well. so that the items of what could have passed before, there's been a size mick shift, people are going to say we need to do more here and not deal with just high scailed or not even just those kids when have lived here for years and give them a path to get an education or serve in our military. but i think we're going to be on that comprehensive. >> better than a 50% chance you have a comprehensive solution? >> i think. so i think there is going to be a subject of a lot of debate and discussion and we're going to need the sc
taxes and $1.60 trillion in texas. how is that going to help anybody? people do not have the money now. where are we going to get it? coming from the government, everybody thinks that are entitled to something. thank you for the call. the top solution is to break the congressional gridlock. north dakota on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. the number one priority is bringing jobs home from china. host: you are on the air. go ahead, roger. caller: these people that sold our country out, they need to be exiled to themselves. host: good morning on the independent line. what is the number-one priority as the president embarks on a second term? caller: the issue a want to talk about this morning is one both sides agree with. everybody agrees but the tax code needs to be reformed, simplified. it needs to be changed in a permanent way where businessmen and individuals can plan for the future. there are multiple ways to do this, cut in reductions, giving everybody a fair chance to the tax code. i think it will really chance the economy. put it on a solid basis for businesses to plan a
host: maverick writes in and said, i see a problem with giving tax credits for hiring unless employees make a living wage. thomas is up next from south carolina on our democrats line. caller: we are down here in foggy south carolina. thank you for c-span. host: thank you. caller: something that has come to my view on a c-span program the other night, two republicans and one democrat were expressing a need for a trust fund to finance infrastructure, which we need very badly, which would put people back to work from some form of tax on the infrastructure that we build. it is the duty of our government to do things for people that they cannot do themselves. the rich can do for themselves. the poor people cannot. i'll hang up and listen. host: let's go to curtis dubay. guest: we keep hearing about infrastructure investment. but the way we do that is federal gaps. the 65 cents of every dollar raised for the federal gas tax actually goes to roads and bridges and highways. the rest of it goes to things that are not supposed to be funded by the attacks. sustainability projects, bike
. we will get more revenue. and has been going down for the past 20 years. currently as a result of tax cuts and a weak economy. it is the lowest since 1950. to reverse the trend is a major breakthrough. yes, we are talking about deficit deduction. we are talking about raising revenue to a level in which can begin to support the kinds of investments we need to make to train our future work force and to create an environment in which we can care for the elderly. >> the think americans will remain optimistic but this did of the economy? if we have not tackle the things we have just talked about like the cost of education, the housing market? we are figuring out some philosophical issues about taxing and funding? >> i think the economy has been growing slowly and steadily all in the absence of any movement, which we have seen over the test of the last year. i have worked on guantanamo for the past 10 years. my sense is that if there is some movement until the positive direction, which have not seen out of washington and enter a long time, -- in a long time, at least we will not see head wi
. this is your story from december 5 talking about the 37% solution. host: right now the top tax rate is 35%. unless congress acts, that goes to 39.6%. that is what the president wants to happen. republicans do not want to go that high. we started talking to republicans earlier this week. there is a little bit of by in of meeting in the metal. a small tax increase, maybe 37%. it allows democrats to say we did get a rate increase and it allows republicans to say yes, but it is not as big as the president initially wanted. both sides can walk away saying in the 1. >> who are the people talking about standing out principles here? is anyone ready to go over the cliff? caller: the most conservative republicans and liberal democrats are willing to go over the cliff. they feel if they do not end up on better ground, if that does happen, at least we did so covering her -- going over on principles. host: thank you for joining us this morning. caller: thank you. host: we are taking your calls on this issue all morning. we will start with george from florida on the republican line. good morning to you
gitener came here to offer a plan that had twice the tax hikes that the president campaigned on and had more stimulus spending thanned the in cuts. and an indefinite increase in the debt limit like for ever. now four days ago we offered a serious proposal based on testimony of president clinton's former chief of staff. since then there has been no count offer from the white house. instead reports indicate that the president has adopted a deliberate stradgeji to slow walk our economy right to the edge of the fiscal cliff. instead of reforming the tax code and cutting spending, the president wants to raise tax rates. but even if the president got the tax rate hike that he wanted, understand that we would continue to see trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see. washington has got a spending problem, not a revenue problem. if the president doesn't agree with our proposal, i believe he's got an obligation to families and small businesses to offer a plan of his own, a plan that can pass both chambers of the congress. we're ready and eager to talk to the president about such a p
the government point of view, everybody is talking about jobs and the fiscal cliff. everyone talks about taxes and what is going to happen with the fiscal cliff. there has been $1500 gone to increase oil prices. you can get them that tax cut today if you invested in our report. everybody talks about entitlements. high oil prices make the social security trust insolvent five years sooner than they would if he did not have high oil prices. america needs jobs and growth. following the recommendations in our report will lead to both of those. it would be good for american business. >> i will start with senator alexander. tell me about energy policy and where it fits in with the fiscal cliff. what we will spend money on and how we were tightened our belts. >> the major place it fits is the right policy would create an environment which would produce a lot more revenue. that would help to reduce the debt. the federal government doesn't spend much money on energy. energy research is about $6 billion a year. i would like to see it doubled. this report is a blueprint for independence and i think it is
compensation. freight railroads should not be subject to any new local, state, or federal tax liability as a result of a partner in a passenger rail project. fourth, freight railroads must be adequately protected from liability associated with hosting passenger service. finally, each project involving passenger rail service on freight don't tracks in general and the high-speed rail project in particular has its own unique challenges and circumstances. to mix the two, agreement must be tailored to the specific needs and conditions of each project. freight railroad support passenger rail and supports government efforts to grow passenger rail in ways that make economic sense. freight railroads are therefore committed to working with government officials, passenger real stakeholders and others to ensure a winning result for all parties involved. thank you for your attention. >> thank you and we will get into some questions. mr. behm, your testimony explains the fra staff said initial predict additional guidance is needed -- additional guidance is needed. what efforts are underway to ensure
with the following belief. the only way to get it in order is through rapid economic growth. no taxes you can raise to bring the debt down. what the president is offering is not enough but will make a dent on job creation, particularly middle-class job creation. i oppose his plan. we should do real tax reform. if there are loopholes, there is a loophole for being able to write off your yacht as a second home. let's go after that. we need more revenue and the way you do that is through rapid economic growth. it's the only way to generate the kind of revenue you need and hold it. >> what's the only way you would raise tax rates on the top 2%? >> the number one issue is to grow the economy and creating jobs. i believe that proposal will hurt job creation. the tru millionaires, they have the best accountants and lawyers in america. do whatever you want, they are go to go maximize it. the people who get crushed, the small s corporation who can't afford to do this in the tax code and ends up getting creamed. they have to get the money from somewhere. though can lay off workers, and none of those things a
tax to the yelt or you continue to slash educational -- he won that referendum. california voters voted for higher income tax on the wealthy in order to have an educated work force. that is huge. he does intend to run again. he's doing an extraordinary job out there. i was honored that he momed me to be a chair. we expect him to run and we expect him to win when he does run. we're excited about that race. in pennsylvania, another example of a tea party governor who isn't getting results. now, as you know the pennsylvania society met this weekend there is a lot of very excited democrats that aren't admitting they are running yet but we're going to have an active field of democrats to challenge a republican in pennsylvania who is not creating jobs and therefore, not very popular. >> let me ask you about the administration, this week you said we have to focus on climate change as a key issue in the next couple of decades. has the obama administration done enough on climate change and what do you want them to do in the next four years? >> i'm going to be candid with you, none of us ha
. what we are finding is too many seniors and up in a situation where they cannot cover their taxes and we lead to a situation where they have more leverage, more debt, than their home is worth by the time they are ready to sell at home. >> because of that change, that is what resulted in the huge, $2.90 billion? >> for most of the new loans we are making, they are at this full-draw, and there will be enormous losses going forward because of that feature. >> ok. also, the last time you testified before the committee, we discussed the national mortgage sediment. can you talk briefly about the fund, how it has benefited from the settlement? >> in the most direct way, it has benefited by well over $1 billion that came directly to the fund from that settlement. or that series of settlements. also important, though, is we put in place, not just for fha loans, but for every kind of loans that were part of it, new standards for how they foreclose on loans, how they work with troubled borrowers, and those changes will have very important effects in the long run, because we will have fewer f
to put 1 foot in front of the other. we focused on wha tthe tax increase would mean to them. but it would also mean a great deal to the economy as well. it is estimated that this tax cut for the middle-class, if not passed, there will be $200 billion taken out of the economy next year. that will determine how many waitresses are working here, how many people -- how many sales persons there are when you see if you can help your sister with her car at. that will determine whether or not you have a job when you graduate. it is going to make a difference to your kids. they are struggling, working hard on their own. whether your son can go back and get his master's or save what he can to get back. that is going to affect economic growth. what we have going now -- there can be no debate. some of my very conservative friends continue to try to reject it is awful hard for them to accept compromise. the economy is beginning -- continuing to move. having met with all the stakeholders, we have met with a number of ceo's, a number of companies and small business people, labor community, progressive g
but it also contributes to climate change. so raising a tax on fossil fuels would be a way to reduce this exposure to climate change and to raise money to fight slavery, for example. >> well, i hadn't thought of that. [laughter] i think that is a good thing. meaning, i'm excited about the fact that there is innovative and interesting ideas in the room. i hope to hear more of them. it is a daring question. you are absolutely right. fossil fuels and modern transportation contribute to the ease in moving people. many of them just move by foot and other things but it also contributes to climate change. i'm not sure what the political implications would be to someone who makes this proposal. i think it would be a challenge for someone to successfully get a tax like that implemented but the idea, the concept of putting a tax or a price premium on something, some commondy as a way to fund human rights effort in general, whatever they might be. that is an interesting idea. how many of us would be willing to add 5%, 3% to the things we buy if we knew it was going into human rights activity to
. my partner and i live together, we function as a normal family. when we go to file taxes, we have to file separately. that makes us both have to have a higher tax than we normally would. i think it should be a matter of economics. you can call it a domestic partnership as long as you give us the same tax rights as a normal couple has. host: do either of you work for the federal government? caller: know, i used to be in the army. i was in there in the don't ask don't tell days. i am not entered the army anymore. host: stephen is from las vegas on the democrats' line. caller: i just have to comment that the craziness of the culture war. my views are probably very left wing it. i have been watching all of the craziness go on. they are going on and on. this is all constitutional rights. i think it is crazy either party focuses on the ideology of the issue. we need to focus on the economic issues of our country and give everybody a constitutional right to live their life how they want to. host: what do you think about the current makeup of the court? caller: i think they honestly shoul
obama troubles monday to an auto plant in michigan to merge congress to extend tax breaks for 998% of americans.
growing agitation and a willingness to see tax by the united states among members of all political persuasions here in the senate. you have four members of the senate here representing the widest range of political parties saying with one voice, america has to lead. america has to lead an international coalition that will make very clear to us to assad, which if he crosses what secretary clinton called the red line and uses these weapons, chemical and biological, there will be grave consequences. essentially the end of his regime. i hope through the deterrence we can stop him from doing so, but i also believe that we as leaders of the world, the united states, has to begin to assemble an international coalition to prevent assad from using the chemical and biological agents against his own people. we have sat too long on the sidelines we are now getting engaged the need for engagement and more than that urgent action is clear and now. and i think we are all saying to president obama who has now stated very clearly there will be drastic consequences for assad and his government if th
implications will be of somebody who made the proposal. i think it is a challenge for some credit to get a tax and implemented. the idea and the concept of putting a tax or a price premium on a commodity as a way to fund human rights and the general, that is an interesting idea out. how many would be a tourist in adding 5% to reasons to buy it if we're ever going to effective human rights of activity. i would do it to? it is and bold and interesting idea. climate change is the heart at population displacement and disasters. it leads people to a sports fishing, not as trafficking and sliver but all kinds of things. that is an important issue to tackle. i talk about the sudden trauma new balk. i look to see more. >> some would call out the tax slavery as some have said i have a lot of hands so try to keep this succinctly. >> i think he brought great insight. the contemporary problem of slavery. i had a couple of concerns and nuances there a think would be helpful. it does not express the depths and complexity, but i think one of the things asking from your analysis was the slave idea of their ow
, but to have the volatility have such an impact, we were fortunate. we put in a payroll tax cut that would cushion people's consumer spending a bit, but when you are in a tenuous time, as we has been the, the fact that the volatility can have such an effect on consumer confidence, we all know that americans are over affected by consumer confidence factors. they are bothered by sudden spikes in gasoline prices more than economics tell you that they should be. and, obviously, jobs related to the actual increase in oil and natural gas production and have an industry is based off of alternative fuels, a think that is all very productive. one thing i want to say since we are in this time where no one seems to be getting along is that, one place where i see a real bipartisan agreement, they have an excellent bill on electric vehicles where they have an idea that maybe you have already talked about, but i believe so much in that type of thing. to be able to show something working somewhere from the first time 60 minutes or cnn and is able to do a story where you show a community where it is easy
paying taxes is a form of slavery, these are unattractive alternatives, and instead, taking a more nuanced approach where we consider slavery in the context of other practices that are related to it without creating the hierarchy but instead focused on the interrelated ness and indebtedness of all the different practices with one another is one that i think the current international legal regime does do. in the way that legal instruments like certain protocols or the definition of slavery in the statute of the international criminal court and the elements of crime, as well as the inclusion of other things in the international criminal court statute, including explicitly sexual slavery or enforced prostitution, and separately, the elimination of crimes against humanity. that is a trend in the way that international law and international -- are looking at the issue. i cannot disagree -- international regimes are looking at the issue. i cannot disagree. instead, what i will do is talk about why it seems so important for us to define a slavery. i will suggest that in asking what is the
trillion. protecting that and the tax revenues to the federal, state, and local governments that that economy generates is critical. that wealth-creating sector was basically shut down for days and in some cases by weeks by the storm appeared building to the standards in effect the day before the storm would peak in possible but also cost ineffective. rebuilding a system at the hoboken caissons would be impossible to do. last week research suggested their return from mitigation spending, especially with respect to flooding, is a national return of 5 to 1, a 14% return. given that these are long-lived transportation infrastructure assets, the return to the local, state, and federal governments of mitigation spending will be substantial, but will also protect this huge part of the nation's economy. >> senator, at the risk of repeating what has been say, i think, clearly, that mitigation is critical. we cannot just rebuild what was there, not only because it may not be physically impossible, but it would be frankly foolish to do so in my opinion. we need to build a system that
obama talks about tax policy. there were put employers by the previous >> project administration and will expire at the end of the year. then marker rubio gives the address. >> hello, everybody. over the last few weeks, there's been a lot of talk about deadlines we're facing on jobs and taxes and investments. but with so much noise and so many opinions flying around, it can be easy to lose sight of what this debate is really about. it's not about which political party comes out on top, or who wins or loses in washington. it's about making smart decisions that will have a real impact on your lives and the lives of americans all across the country. right now, middle-class tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the year. time is running out. and there are two things that can happen. first, if congress does nothing, every family in america will see their income taxes automatically go up on january 1st. a typical middle-class family of four would get a $2,200 tax hike. that would be bad for families, it would be bad for businesses, and it would drag down our entire economy. now, con
Search Results 0 to 48 of about 49 (some duplicates have been removed)